Archives |
---|
Welcome to my Talk Page! |
Contents
- 1 Please explain
- 2 SPI archive link not showing
- 3 ip block exemption Reply
- 4 Sockpuppet
- 5 Davidbuddy9 and User:QuentinQuade
- 6 Whew
- 7 Hi..
- 8 Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka
- 9 You've got mail!
- 10 CosmicEmperor
- 11 ACC
- 12 Socks within socks?
- 13 Thanks for the rapid
- 14 Recent block
- 15 Help Me Rhonda, help, help me Rhonda!!!
- 16 Henry Mazzer socks
- 17 Hapuna
- 18 Biscuittin
- 19 Regarding my account
- 20 User:Darreg
- 21 A barnstar for you!
- 22 Hi
- 23 Winterysteppe
- 24 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soft skin
- 25 Appreciate the second chance.
- 26 As promised - account created!
- 27 On ACC: blocks affecting schools and simple vandalism
- 28 ACC user rights
- 29 Hypixel (Minecraft Server)
Please explain
Please explain what you mean by the comment you left on my page. Thanks. --Marbe166 (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was referring to the link you added to the Peter Haber article. Mike V • Talk 14:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
SPI archive link not showing
I'm not sure what happened, but after you archived this SPI [1] the archive link stopped displaying on the SPI page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Trackteur. Meters (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- See User talk:Salvidrim!#Archive link missing? -- now fixed. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
ip block exemption Reply
Hi there, I got a notification that I no longer have an IP block exemption. Any special reason why not? I haven't been using those computers lately, but I might conceivably want to at some point. Elinruby (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi there. It's not so much the computers that you are using, but the network that you access. Originally, the IP block exemption was granted to you because you were affected by a hard block a range that you use. I've looked at the block and it is no longer in place. You should be able to edit just fine without IPBE. If you encounter any difficulties, please let me know and I'd be glad to take a look. Mike V • Talk 16:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Mike V: ok, network. Be technical. Let's try this again. The IP block in question was the library system for San Mateo County, California. Big place, downtown Bay Area, tho sure, apparently there were persistent vandals, I get it, the admin I talked to about this explained it to me at the time..
-
- My point is, though, that although I have been able to edit from home recently, I might need to go to the library fairly soon, actually, since I have been working on an article about a big news story (Panama Papers) and am increasingly hampered by paywalls, ie "we're glad you like the Financial Times so much -- please subscribe." I can't do that for ALL the publications, so I need a different internet gateway.If you are saying that I don't need it anymore because I haven't needed it, you may be wrong, is all I am saying.
-
- Or Or has Wikipedia lifted the IP block on San Mateo County, and that's why you are saying I don't need it? In that case, I might agree with you, actually. Are you able to easily determine whether Santa Clara County has the same restrictions? I don't live *that* far from there any more. If I can be autoconfirmed on wikipedia on their network, no, guess I can do without it if you want to keep user permissions at lowest needed level. I would. Can you ping me please? This may affect my plans for the next few days. And if I can avoid a journey just to discover that WP thinks I am a newbie, that would be great :) Thanks Elinruby (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
Both are the same person. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Davidbuddy9 and User:QuentinQuade
I was a bit confused as to what happened here. Of course I don't have the tools you do, but did an IP or MACD check confirm this is a sockpuppet? I assume you have completely ruled out the possibility that these are two editors who are friends and canvassed each other. I only bring this up because it seemed there was a 180 between your evaluation and Vanjagenije. Valoem talk contrib 22:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, I ran a check to compare the accounts. I decided to dig deeper when I saw the AfD votes. The interaction tool showed more overlapping discussions, with some votes only minutes apart. I ran a check and found technical evidence that connected the accounts, including apparent attempts to hide his efforts of sockpuppetry. Mike V • Talk 22:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- In case there was any doubt, Davidbuddy9 confirmed he used the account. Mike V • Talk 22:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
For your consideration, in case you want to give a warning, take action, or merely weigh this in case future problems arise. He just posted a deceptive search link in an RFC, which I consider disruptive. Quick background, and for brevity I assume you don't care what ESI is. He had been creating lists based on ESI, rebuilding existing lists to be based ESI, and sock-voting to keep them. There is currently an RFC open to decide whether ESI is an unencyclopedic value that shouldn't be used at all in our general articles. It's currently going against him. He just made this edit. The search result returns 46 science papers, which he claims backs up common scientific use of ESI. Except 43 of the 46 search results are bogus, false hits. (I checked each and every one.) He also presented 3 specific valid links from that list as "just three random papers I clicked on", as examples of science papers using ESI. Normally we would AGF a flawed search link. However if he had clicked three links at random, as he claims, there's only a 1 in 15180 chance that he could have clicked the exact three valid search results. I think he's burned his AGF, there's no way this was an innocent mistake. It's another effort to deceptively subvert voting in his favor, for his ESI fetish. Alsee (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Whew
Thank goodness for this. Nsmutte is easy to type that long string of letters wouldn't have been :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi..
Your presence is requested in ACC:168699, please (fairly urgent). Thank you —UY Scuti Talk 18:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Edited --18:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, everything is all set now. Mike V • Talk 19:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shamit Khemka
You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Message added 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
GABHello! 18:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
CosmicEmperor
Hello, sorry to bother you, but have got a suspicion that CosmicEmperor is using a new sockpuppet called ThePlatypusofDoom. He's similar to GreekLegend in being heavily involved with AFD, issuing prods, interfering with new page patrols to issue csds,(he's been warned on his talkpage for interfering with npp actions) and also interfering at the ANI board. Thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the account is not related to CosmicEmperor. Mike V • Talk 20:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
ACC
Have I told you how amazing you are? ;).. On a totally unrelated note.. *looks back and forth* ACC has a CU backlog of 15+ requests and 4 days. :) -- Cheers, Riley 20:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Trying to butter me up, eh? I'll hop on and take a look shortly. Mike V • Talk 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- It worked, didn't it? Heh. CU backlog now 14+. -- Cheers, Riley 19:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Hello, Mike V. Please check your email – you've got mail!. -- Cheers, Riley 03:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Socks within socks?
Thanks for checking and closing the nominations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer. Since our edits sort of overlapped, I don't know if you saw my suggestion there that all these might be related to David Beals. Any thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- From what I gathered, it doesn't seem to be likely. Mike V • Talk 20:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Could you please comment on Biscuittin, in relation to this crop of socks.
- Do you think Biscuittin was the sockmaster behind this group? There's no obvious evidence given on the SPI page and there are a number of master pages open with overlapping puppets claimed.
- So far I have seen no evidence to connect this to Biscuittin. I'd worked around Biscuittin for some years, rarely happily, but he had never struck me as the type to start socking or pull this level of disruption. Jytdog though is now throwing his name around whenever some new random troll pops up. This is right against a bunch of our basic principles: we should AGF Biscuittin unless there is evidence to really suggest otherwise, unfounded SPIs are harassment, and it's also basically unfair to be throwing so many allegations around after blocking their access to reply.
- Is there anything sticking to Biscuittin, because I'm not seeing it. In its absence, we should back off blackening him. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your efforts in assuming good faith, the technical evidence does show a credible connection between the socks and the account. The behavioral evidence of the socks targeting Jytdog lends support to this conclusion as well. Mike V • Talk 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Being pissed off at Jytdog isn't restricted to Biscuittin though! I saw Biscuittin's initial trouble, and their thoroughly unproductive indef, as being targetted at JzG, not Jytdog. The "WP needs reform" essay is the sort of thing that has many hands over it already and is no more than a shared grievance. Even QuackGuru has as much involvement with that as anyone else, yet Jytdog is never going to accuse him of being a sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, it's only supporting evidence. The technical evidence carries a lot of the weight in establishing the connection. Mike V • Talk
- As usual, that's all behind the impenetrable veil of CU but "Possilikely" is hardly damning! How many sockmasters has Milligansuncle now been accused of being a puppet for? Four? If we can't be clearer than that, it's no grounds for declaring Biscuittin as the next Trotsky/Snowball/Josef K unperson. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that "because of checkuser evidence" isn't the best thing to hear. It's inherently opaque, as the privacy policy limits when and to whom I can release this information. With that said, I believe it's done that way for the best. The possilikely result was the outcome of only one of the checks that I performed. However, upon looking at the new accounts that have arisen, the technical data has become more clear and it was easier to reach my conclusion. Mike V • Talk 19:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- As usual, that's all behind the impenetrable veil of CU but "Possilikely" is hardly damning! How many sockmasters has Milligansuncle now been accused of being a puppet for? Four? If we can't be clearer than that, it's no grounds for declaring Biscuittin as the next Trotsky/Snowball/Josef K unperson. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- To be clear, it's only supporting evidence. The technical evidence carries a lot of the weight in establishing the connection. Mike V • Talk
- Being pissed off at Jytdog isn't restricted to Biscuittin though! I saw Biscuittin's initial trouble, and their thoroughly unproductive indef, as being targetted at JzG, not Jytdog. The "WP needs reform" essay is the sort of thing that has many hands over it already and is no more than a shared grievance. Even QuackGuru has as much involvement with that as anyone else, yet Jytdog is never going to accuse him of being a sock. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your efforts in assuming good faith, the technical evidence does show a credible connection between the socks and the account. The behavioral evidence of the socks targeting Jytdog lends support to this conclusion as well. Mike V • Talk 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid
…reversion of vandalism at the Prince article. One can only be appreciative of the diligence it takes to prevent such offenses, here.
Indulge my technical and procedural curiosity, if you will—how is it that the Revision history's time and date stamp link points to a non-vandaised version of the article in place of the vandalised? This must be a capability limited to Administrators I am guessing? Regarding the need, despite this, for an historical record, please see below.
I note also that the Edit summaries for both the vandalism and reversion are "edit summary removed" with a strike-through. Is this the prescribed way of dealing with offensive vandalism? I can understand the need to limit circulation of an offensive edit, but should there not be a clear record, in the Edit summary or Talk (somewhere), for the historical record, as to what occurred? ("Offensive edit of the type… removed and replaced with…", or some such.)
Also, am I wrong on perceiving that your edit, being made within a minute of the vandalism, despite which, The Wrap ended up with a "screen shot" of the offensive vandalism, would suggest that the editor Heidi Wyss that is now blocked, did their edit with the specific intent of creating content to provide to a publication such as The Wrap? (Had the edit stayed in place for any length of time, there would be other explanations. But given the one minute turn-around, it seems to me that the record of the vandalism could only have been made during the edit, by the vandals themselves.) Are there technical points I am missing that would suggest otherwise? (For instance, was exchange of the link to the offending page edit at the Revision history's time and date stamp immediate, as the edit summary suggests, or was that unique aspect of the reversion and record generation perhaps done later, leaving time for someone to make a copy, via an authentic link to the past page, for transmission to The Wrap?)
My interest in this, is (eventually) to shed light on the way that the story made its way outside of Wikipedia. Per your diligence, it does not seem that is should have. Cheers, and again, thanks for the attention and effort. Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- The article was moved to an offensive name and I had moved it back to the original title. Another administrator used the revision deletion tool to redact the log entry. The editor, Heidi Wyss, was then blocked for this vandalism. As for whether The Wrap was responsible for it, I can't say for sure. Yesterday there were 5.8 million page views, so a number of individuals could have seen the concerning revision(s) in that short period of time. Mike V • Talk 13:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent block
You recently blocked Purple Showers, an editor I had suggested as a possible sock I had named in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Whiskeymouth (already CU'd by another CU). Just wanted to make you aware in case I was only half-right. NE Ent 10:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to be related to Whiskeymouth, but the account is confirmed to BettyDavis1989, StudentAssignment1, Justaprilfols, Dishwater Red, and Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy. Mike V • Talk 13:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Help Me Rhonda, help, help me Rhonda!!!
Could you help me figure out the problem with the cite error for the first reference on the David Saunders (American football) article? I don't quite no what's going on. I read it twice and the words just aren't making sense in my brain at the moment. CrashUnderride 23:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Crash Underride: All set. Mike V • Talk 23:39, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Henry Mazzer socks
Hello, Mike V,
I was looking at Mazzer's socks and User:TrackerMartin and User:Hatchmight were previously identified as socks of User:Evlekis. Could Mazzer and all of his socks belong to Evlekis then? If so, I guess Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Henry Mazzer/Archive might have to be moved or renamed. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 11:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. I reviewed the technical evidence and it seems you are right. I've gone ahead and merged the cases. Mike V • Talk 15:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hapuna
I am posting only to contact you because I don't know how to contact you otherwise. I have no intention of editing.
I request that you exempt me (Hapuna) from your recent action. This is a computer in a lounge. I have acted responsibly. You may, of course, act with insults, denial, or other authoritative means but I simply ask you to be fair and compassionate with me. Thank you. Ensign H (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I won't be able to grant your request. Technical evidence shows that multiple accounts were created, which is against our sockpuppetry policy. Best, Mike V • Talk 19:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Biscuittin
Sorry to bug you but what did you mean by "RBI-ing" here? thx. Jytdog (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- No worries. It means to revert, block, and ignore. Mike V • Talk 12:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding my account
Hey, thanks for intervening but checked again today, my block status says unblocked, but when i try to edit a page i created, it says you are blocked. Please counter-check again. Thanks
------------------------------------------------------
Checked again, just now. It worked. Thanks Samar khurshid (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Samar khurshid (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Darreg
I'm not sure if pings work properly within unblock templates, so I thought I'd best let you know directly too - I've put an unblock request on hold at User talk:Darreg pending your input. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for posting, as I did not get the ping. I've gone ahead and unblocked the account. Mike V • Talk 14:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much sirs'. You don't know how happy I am for the privilege to be legally back to Wikipedia. You made my day, this is not something I will take for granted at all. Yesterday, I actually thanked God for the favour. I promise to stick to the guidelines of Wikipedia completely irrespective of anything that comes my way in the future. Darreg (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Great, thanks! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Thanks for standing up for a little civility here. Legacypac (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hi
I've just been blocked [wrongly!] and I am deeply affronted. I am very inexperienced and it has taken me twenty minutes to find this way to contact you, but I am furious.
Kindly explain why my IP 79.64.58.17 was blocked along with whatever it was.(New Tricks TV episodes)
You ought to take better care of decent people trying to improve Wiki; this is Draconian and either the structure is all wrong, or you have made an error or you are just plain a nasty person. What?
I reckon I shall simply leave.
Thank you in advance for your reply
Regards
Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjh009 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- If you look at the block notice, it will show that the IP was blocked, not your account directly. I designed the block so that users who were logged in could edit without restriction. Because the block is a checkuser block, I can't elaborate on it due to our privacy policy. Please note that such blocks are not made unless they are necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. While we hope that you won't leave, if you choose to do so we respect that decision and wish you the best in your future endeavors. Best regards, Mike V • Talk 20:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Winterysteppe
This has a similar name as KgosarMyth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), another confirmed sock. It was created just after the last couple of socks were blocked. Just checking on this... Thanks! GABHello! 23:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Thanks for passing that on. Mike V • Talk 00:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soft skin
Could you please try to block their IP address? CLCStudent (talk) 18:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is not possible here. Mike V • Talk 18:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Appreciate the second chance.
Sorry for the bad behavior yesterday. Thanks for removing the block. You won't have any more problems from me - that is a promise. The comment to NBSB was inappropriate and I sincerely apologize for causing you and the other admins any problems. It was an off-the-cuff remark made in jest. Looking back I can see how it could construed as an insult/harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B40:CC20:4944:6CBD:BE69:44BE (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
As promised - account created!
Mike, as promised, I created an account and have now logged in. I very much want to edit constructively and help wikipedia. I am also curious as to what my next steps should be? Are there any articles that need fixing/editing? I am happy to assist with grammar/punctuation cleanup if need be, or adding/creating content in whatever area most needs it. As I said, I am here to help and appreciate the second chance. Msjjkim (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
On ACC: blocks affecting schools and simple vandalism
The criteria for ignoring is 'Rangeblocks or single IP blocks affecting schools can be ignored only if both are found to be true[...]' I'm a relatively new ACC user, so I'm wondering whether the fact it's schools is relevant in dealing with this guideline. Take request (Redacted) - was there evidence that the IP was a school that I missed? Thanks NottNott|talk 21:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- First, welcome to to ACC team! Looking at that request, the IP was blocked using the {{anonblock}} and the block was over a week ago. Thus you can ignore the block and handle it normally, as per this part of the guide. (The same applies for schools blocks over a week old.) Of course, if something seems off and you suspect something, leave a note in the comments and the CUs will take a further look. Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
ACC user rights
Hello! Can you please reinstate my Account creator right? I have been readded to the tool. TheMesquitobuzz 17:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Mike V • Talk 20:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Hypixel (Minecraft Server)
Just thought you may be interested in the small army of SPAs at that page who are working in tandem, removing CSD tags ([2][3]), trying to strip out advertisements in an effort to keep the article, participating in the talk-page discussion (and agreeing with one another) and at AFD, etc. It gives me a headache just looking at it all, and I was wondering if you thought it was worth pursuing further. Thanks for your help! GABHello! 21:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)